If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

I'm not sure about that, actually what the Pacers do a lot of teams are doing, Phoenix with Dragic/Bledsoe, NO with Jrue/EJ, Dallas with Calderon/Monta, etc, I'm not sure were this operating outside the norm thing is coming from because is actually the norm.

I think that beast23 was talking about the way our guards operate and not that we simply have two guards that are both capable of being the PG.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Major Cold For This Useful Post:

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

probably not right now but long term, yes. given our salary situation it'd be wise to look at moving Hill in the offseason in a similar fashion to how we acquired him. It'll be a no brainer if they decide to pursue keeping both Lance & Danny.

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

I'm also tempted to try to look up the record for triple doubles in a season.

League wise is probably Oscar Robertson.
EDIT: Research shows that it is indeed the Big O in his legendary 1961-62 campaign, and that record aint falling unless Lance rips off 42 Triple-Dubs this season.

The team record is 4 in a year from Detlef. I think that one is falling.

Last edited by Sandman21; 12-29-2013 at 02:53 AM.

"Nobody wants to play against Tyler Hansbrough NO BODY!" ~ Frank Vogel

"And David put his hand in the bag and took out a stone and slung it. And it struck the Philistine on the head and he fell to the ground. Amen. "
Want your own "Just Say No to Kamen" from @mkroeger pic? http://twitpic.com/a3hmca

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

Before I say anything, let me get something straight: I'm not disappointed at all in George Hill's play as the starting point guard.

Okay, so I'm starting to believe that Stephenson should start at the one. He has that uncanny ability to see things before they happen and make the incredible pass. And what's even more impressive is his ability to do this almost every time he gets the ball. I remember early in the first quarter Stephenson had what like 4 or 5 assists in a row? This also means that GHill plays at the SG spot, his natural position. The only downside I see of this is Hill might be a defensive liability against the larger two guards. What is PD's thoughts?

I think what your really asking is who should control the ball more, or be the facilitator ie "PG".

the comment "keep as is" ... good in thought is not what Coach Vogel is doing. were not changing the dynamics but Coach is evolving the offense to allow Lance to facilitate. this begun about a month ago and I mentioned it in a game thread that slowly coach Vogel was allowing Lance more leeway and freedom offensively by allowing him to bring the ball up the court. which is essentially the "pg" role. its jumped from about 15% to now tonite 55%. when hill is not on the floor lance is even taking command of the offense over CJ Watson.

Ive picked up that Coach Vogel likes to tinker with lineups and different dynamics against inferior teams specifically at home. I believe Coach is basically grooming Lance for a bigger role come postseason. Against elite teams Coach will play it closer to vest.

To answer your question in a way that may be more relevant to what your searching for.

Should Lance facilitate (bring ball up) in the playoffs as primary point. I believe Vogel is considering that right now and will evaluate as the season goes on. having lance run point allows GHill to play more of that shooting guard role which he excels at.

If Lance continues to excel at initiating the offense and can play under control then yes he may take a bigger responsibility over both hill and cj which will beneifit both of those players as well and our offense overall.

I think lance has a much easier time making the entry pass into the post. however, Hill and DWest are phenomenal at the pick and pop.

long story short. Bird has built the team with a lot of flexibility and versatility. many may recall his comment that he wants players out there that can play multiple positions/roles interchangeably.

This pacers team can beat you so many ways, and they really play great team basketball.

I trust that Coach Vogel will continue to evaluate ways to continuously improve the team. I can see Lance as the primary initiator 50% of the time come the postseason just because Hill is so good at the shooting guard role.

This team is just so darn good in how they cohesively play well together. the playoffs are all about matchups so it will be difficult to know what Coach will decide.

I will say this, I think Lance is better with the ball in his hands. he doesn't force the issue as much when he touches more consistently from get go. Hill if asked would prob say he prefers a sg role. so in essense, yes this can work.. and defensively it will not be an issue either.

the question I have is can Lance avoid careless turnovers and hot dog passes. if so then yes he along with hill running off screens can potentially take our offense to the next level. against the elite teams we cannot have a sloppy selfish showoff point creating careless turnovers and expect to win.

The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to PacersPride For This Useful Post:

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

Pretty sure we had this discussion 2 months ago, why start Lance at the 1 ? Granger isn't even strong enough yet to be a full time starter, and Lance isn't quick enough to guard the quicker PGs. If you think Hill gets beat by quicker PGs, Lance will get demolished.

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

League wise is probably Oscar Robertson.
EDIT: Research shows that it is indeed the Big O in his legendary 1961-62 campaign, and that record aint falling unless Lance rips off 42 Triple-Dubs this season.

The team record is 4 in a year from Detlef. I think that one is falling.

I really don't see anyone breaking Big O's record. That guy was special. Detlef's record was quite close to be tied last night so it definitely is falling.

Tonight, all flags must burn, in place of steeples.
Autonomy must return into the hands of the people.

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

Things are fine the way they are because Lance basically plays the point on the floor anyways.

There have been several comments along these lines. But here's the deal: Still, about half the time we start the offense, Lance is standing in the corner.

I don't care what you call it—point guard, 2 guard, an offense initiated by the wings—this offense needs to be started by Lance most of the time. I think he has demonstrated pretty clearly by now that we excel at the highest level when this is the case.

.

.

.

.

"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

Pretty sure we had this discussion 2 months ago, why start Lance at the 1 ? Granger isn't even strong enough yet to be a full time starter, and Lance isn't quick enough to guard the quicker PGs. If you think Hill gets beat by quicker PGs, Lance will get demolished.

This is a moot point. Lance is guarding the two primarily and Hill the one, regardless of which position they play on offense. (Unless you are assuming that Hill is benched if Lance "starts at the 1.")

.

.

.

.

"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

Defensively alone this will not work. Hill has played extremely well against Wall, Parker, Jennings, Mike Conley, and on and on the list goes. He keeps them out of the lane far better than anybody not named Paul George. Our offense is clicking and Lance is making that happen. But we will never see the day that Lance is guarding the other point guard. Can you imagine how zapped he would be?

He is thriving in the current role. A role that many here wanted him. Let us be happy with that.

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

I actually agree but I can guarantee you that many others will want and expect a 100% Danny Granger to start. It will be an issue. Heck, it's been an issue with Danny laid up so you know if he starts playing great we will hear the groans. I can only say I hope he shares minutes with Lance and Paul, but after coming off the bench.

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

I don't get the point of this if George Hill is still going to be starting.

I think the question is not about defense—Hill still guards the 1 and Lance the 2. The question is who generally initiates the offense. In the past it has been 90 percent Hill. That has changed in the last month or so to 60-40 if not 50-50. Some are saying (me included) that Lance should always initiate it. Call it what you want: point guard, initiating wing man, or just "Lance starting the offense."

.

.

.

.

"I like our group of people," Ainge told USA Today. "I'm trying to teach them about basketball, and they're trying to teach me about analytics."

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

I think the question is not about defense—Hill still guards the 1 and Lance the 2. The question is who generally initiates the offense. In the past it has been 90 percent Hill. That has changed in the last month or so to 60-40 if not 50-50. Some are saying (me included) that Lance should always initiate it. Call it what you want: point guard, initiating wing man, or just "Lance starting the offense."

It appears the team is handing him the reigns a bit more. Unlike Hill, he puts so much more pressure on the defense because they don't know what he'll do. He can see over the defense better than Hill. He might throw a dart. He might drive and dish. He might go all the way to the rack for an And-One. This uncertainty can get the defense off balance allowing ball movement to be that much more effective. I understand the risks involved with Lance, but the only way you get the biggest reward is by taking big risks. I think Hill and Granger should be the SG's on this team and Lance should initiate the offense.

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

League wise is probably Oscar Robertson.
EDIT: Research shows that it is indeed the Big O in his legendary 1961-62 campaign, and that record aint falling unless Lance rips off 42 Triple-Dubs this season.

The team record is 4 in a year from Detlef. I think that one is falling.

Yeah, the team record could fall next week. Big O's record is safe. Incredible that he averaged a triple double that season. Lance is impressive with 14 pts, 7 reb and 5 assists per game though!

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

I think the question is not about defense—Hill still guards the 1 and Lance the 2. The question is who generally initiates the offense. In the past it has been 90 percent Hill. That has changed in the last month or so to 60-40 if not 50-50. Some are saying (me included) that Lance should always initiate it. Call it what you want: point guard, initiating wing man, or just "Lance starting the offense."

I took his response to assume both would start, but their roles would be adjusted on offense....toward Lance initiating the offense more often than he had earlier in the season. So, I think that is a change.

BTW, it's already starting to shift a little and rightly so. Lance is simply better at the job. That's good because earlier this year George Hill said this:

“I'm reluctant to play the one. I'm happy with it, I 'm learning, but there's still some two in my body.”

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

I think the question is not about defense—Hill still guards the 1 and Lance the 2. The question is who generally initiates the offense. In the past it has been 90 percent Hill. That has changed in the last month or so to 60-40 if not 50-50. Some are saying (me included) that Lance should always initiate it. Call it what you want: point guard, initiating wing man, or just "Lance starting the offense."

I guess I don't understand this comment. We have often used David West to initiate the offense at the elbow and we continue to do so.

Or maybe this is just semantics, if you equate "bringing the ball up" to "initiating the offense." I don't.

And on a different note, the Pacers do a great deal less pick and roll than most teams. Vogel likes to mix it up depending on the matchups, using West to back in or pop, pitching to Roy in the post, letting Lance probe and generally act like Tigger, etc.

But if for nothing else, having both Hill and Stephenson on the floor gives us a couple decent ballhandlers. That's never been Danny's strength and PG is still a bit wobbly when he overdribbles.

And yes, there isn't much to fix right now, is there? Right now, I'm content to watch Danny shake off the rust on the second unit and really bring more pain that way.

Re: Should Stephenson start at the 1?

I guess I don't understand this comment. We have often used David West to initiate the offense at the elbow and we continue to do so.

Or maybe this is just semantics, if you equate "bringing the ball up" to "initiating the offense." I don't.

And on a different note, the Pacers do a great deal less pick and roll than most teams. Vogel likes to mix it up depending on the matchups, using West to back in or pop, pitching to Roy in the post, letting Lance probe and generally act like Tigger, etc.

But if for nothing else, having both Hill and Stephenson on the floor gives us a couple decent ballhandlers. That's never been Danny's strength and PG is still a bit wobbly when he overdribbles.

And yes, there isn't much to fix right now, is there? Right now, I'm content to watch Danny shake off the rust on the second unit and really bring more pain that way.

I think the fact West is the one actually initiating kind of proves the point. All Hill is doing is bringing the ball down and dumping it off to another player....then running around to get open. What's the point of that when you can hand the ball to Lance and he can find the open man?

BTW, it's often West getting the hand-off from Hill because he can pass the ball and puts pressure on the defense. That's exactly what Lance does but he does it even better. With West he's posting up. With Lance he's penetrating which is even more devastating to a defense especially when that guy has eyes in the back of his head. He leads this team in assists by a mile for a reason. He can get guys open, high percentage shots like nobody on this team so he really needs to have the ball a lot.

Now if he's not the one initiating the offense, we really need to work on ball movement because otherwise we are taking a lot of contested shots. That is particularly true if you pull Lance entirely off the floor.